On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2010, at 19:29 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>> > Actually, I should take that back. Some of the device specs are
>> > definitely relevant
>>
>> Right, and some of you
Thanks Eric for bringing this up here.
On Jun 5, 2010, at 00:21 , Eric Uhrhane wrote:
> First of all, I think this discussion should include DAP [+CC]. DAP
> folks, this discussion started at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0886.html.
>
> My take is that I've gott
On Jun 4, 2010, at 22:36 , Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On 6/3/10 4:13 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Decisions of what is in scope for a WG are made by the members (i.e. you)
>> when a WG is created. When DAP was created, people felt rather strongly
>> (personally, I disagreed, I know that Arun had sim
On Jun 4, 2010, at 18:16 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> I recall pushing strongly to correct that at TPAC in san jose. I don't think
> it's purely "historical".
Well, it's historical in the sense that that is the agreement that we reached
when the discussion was last on the table (which was mon
Hey all--I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this thread.
I'm a little short on bandwidth right now, and that's likely going to
get worse for at least a couple of weeks.
First of all, I think this discussion should include DAP [+CC]. DAP
folks, this discussion started at
http://lists.w3
On 6/3/10 4:13 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Jun 2, 2010, at 23:02 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor
holds a certain amount of sway.
Decisions of what is in scope for a WG are made by the members (i.e. you) when
a WG is created. Wh
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2010, at 19:29 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> > Actually, I should take that back. Some of the device specs are
> definitely relevant
>
> Right, and some of your colleagues just submitted Powerbox there, which
> seems like a non-neg
On Jun 3, 2010, at 19:29 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> Actually, I should take that back. Some of the device specs are definitely
> relevant
Right, and some of your colleagues just submitted Powerbox there, which seems
like a non-negligible chunk of work to me ;-)
> though I have concerns abo
Actually, I should take that back. Some of the device specs are definitely
relevant, though I have concerns about the direction they are heading.
Either way though, it seems strange for the filesystem apis to be split.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> Were it not for
Were it not for file* I, and perhaps Google as a whole, would likely leave
DAP (though I cannot speak for everyone). Nothing else there is of interest
to me right now.
On Jun 3, 2010 4:13 AM, "Robin Berjon" wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 23:02 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I don't know who makes these d
On Jun 2, 2010, at 23:02 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor
> holds a certain amount of sway.
Decisions of what is in scope for a WG are made by the members (i.e. you) when
a WG is created. When DAP was created, people felt rather strongly
On Jun 2, 2010, at 22:14 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
> It keeps seeming to me that moving the file-writer spec to WebApps
> would make much more sense...
It's certainly a discussion that we can look into, but before we try to
re-engineer everything I'd like to ask a stupid question: did the OP not fin
Makes sense to me. (Though I'm still not convinced of its usefulness).
/ Jonas
2010/6/2 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
> Also, for the sake of keeping things together, when we move this over we
> should probably move FileSystem over as well.
> -Ian
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
Also, for the sake of keeping things together, when we move this over we
should probably move FileSystem over as well.
-Ian
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> I'm reaching out to some W3C team contacts to figure out logistics.
>
> -Ian
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:02
I'm reaching out to some W3C team contacts to figure out logistics.
-Ian
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor
> holds a certain amount of sway. I'd imagine that it would get a lot
> more review and attention fr
I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor
holds a certain amount of sway. I'd imagine that it would get a lot
more review and attention from browser companies on WebApps. Apple
isn't on DAP at all, and everyone from mozilla that works on related
APIs are not on the DAP list
I whole-heartedly agree, and have said as much in the past, both on public
MLs and to various W3C team contacts.
-Ian
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> It keeps seeming to me that moving the file-writer spec to WebApps
> would make much more sense...
>
> / Jonas
>
> 2010/6/
It keeps seeming to me that moving the file-writer spec to WebApps
would make much more sense...
/ Jonas
2010/6/2 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
> http://www.w3.org/TR/file-writer-api/
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Cristiano Sumariva
> wrote:
>>
>> I have been reading the specification on file sec
http://www.w3.org/TR/file-writer-api/
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Cristiano Sumariva wrote:
> I have been reading the specification on file section.
> I would like to ask why not propose that File interface allow a create
> method to let user save data for his use?
>
> Resume:
>
> Interface F
I have been reading the specification on file section.
I would like to ask why not propose that File interface allow a create
method to let user save data for his use?
Resume:
Interface File extends Blob
{
attribute unsigned long long currentPosition;
readonly attribute signed long long d
20 matches
Mail list logo
